Editorial: Despite ruling, racial equity work continues

The U.S. Supreme Court surprised no one on Tuesday when it upheld a Michigan constitutional amendment that bans affirmative action admission policies at state universities. Somewhat surprising, perhaps, is what the justices didn’t do.

The 6-2 decision left untouched earlier rulings – including the 2003 decision involving the University of Michigan - in which justices said that state universities may take race into account. Instead, the justices simply cleared the way for voter initiatives similar to Michigan’s Prop 2, passed by a wide margin in 2006, and those in five other states.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a three-member plurality, even cautioned – much to the chagrin of his more conservative colleagues – that the ruling took no position on the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies.

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved,” he wrote. “It is about who may resolve it.”

We are no fan of Michigan’s ban on affirmative action, grounded as it is in the fantasy that we live in a post-racial society. Despite major advancements in recent decades, people of color continue to face hurdles when it comes to equality in education. They encounter discrimination when colleges consider "legacy" applicants, — generally white males whose fathers and grandfathers attended the same school. They're more likely to live in impoverished neighborhoods, where they're more likely to attend inferior schools.

Race-conscious admission policies, however, aren’t a solution, but a tool – one that even some advocates of racial equity argue is outdated and counterproductive. There are others.

Texas has helped ensure diverse college student bodies by admitting a percentage of the top students from every high school in the state. Other options include increasing financial grants for economically disadvantaged students; ending preferences for children of wealthy alumni and donors; and encouraging transfers from community colleges, which tend to have a higher rate of minority enrollment.

The diversity of enrollment is no less important today than it was before Tuesday’s ruling. Universities adopt affirmative action policies because they know that their schools are better educational environments when they have a diverse group of students.

We trust that Michigan universities will pursue alternatives to ensure the diversity of student enrollment.

Michigan’s law banning affirmative action in admission remains bad public policy, but it’s not unconstitutional, and it’s not an insurmountable barrier to creating more opportunities for people of color in our state.